Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1574 (RAJ)

Mandeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-10

ATUL KUMAR JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - In this matter complainant-petitioner Mandeep Singh has challenged the order dated 3.4.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 9/2012 whereby his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance under Section 307 I.P.C., etc., against non-petitioner No. 2 Jaspal Singh and non-petitioner No. 3 Harvindra Singh was dismissed by that Court. 2. The petitioner has submitted that after examination of about ten witnesses, out of the list of thirty witnesses in the trial Court, he had filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that too has been labelled as premature by the trial Court. The petitioner has vehemently challenged the order of the trial Court and he has argued that he was not supposed to filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., after examination of all the thirty witnesses of the prosecution. 3. On the other hand, proposed accused Jaspal Singh (non-petitioner No. 2) and Harvindra Singh (non-petitioner No. 3) have opposed the revision petition on the basis of the following rulings: (1) Ram Singh v. Ramniwas, 2009 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 581 . (2) Brindaban Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, 2009 Cr.L.R. 124 . 4. On the basis of these rulings, it has been argued that the evidence present on the record should be sufficient for conviction and only then cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be taken and not otherwise. It has also been argued that issuance of summons entails a "de novo" trial and reexamination of large number of witnesses would prejudice the prosecution and delay the trial, so powers should be exercised under Section 319 Cr.P.C. with great care and caution. 5. On the other hand, following ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court supports the case of the complainant: (1) Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2007 Cr.L.R. (SC) 4281 . In this case it was held that it should be left to the judicial discretion of the Court to decide to proceed or not to proceed against the person in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and also that the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are extraordinary or exercisable only in exception circumstances.In Rajesh v. State of Haryana, 2001 Cri.LJ. In this case it was held that it should be left to the judicial discretion of the Court to decide to proceed or not to proceed against the person in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and also that the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are extraordinary or exercisable only in exception circumstances.In Rajesh v. State of Haryana, 2001 Cri.LJ. (SC) 3511 , also it was held that no doubt powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has to be sparingly used but that would not mean that when the prosecutrix named three persons who are involved in serious crime are not to be added as accused by exercising such powers. 6. In the case in hand, the Investigating Officer had been found unduly biased in favour of Jaspal Singh and Harvindra Singh and so their names had not been included in the charge-sheet and so the complainant was forced to lead evidence in the trial Court because the police had filed charge-sheet only against other two accused-persons, namely Chain Singh and Amritpal Singh. By now, out of twelve witnesses examined in the trial Court, at least statements of material witnesses PW-1 Harnek Singh, PW-4 Mandeep Singh (complainant), PW-8 Krishna Nain and PW-9 Najam Singh are in support of the complainants version and thus it can be said that the complainant and three other material witnesses have strongly implicated accused Jaspal Singh (non-petitioner No. 2) and Harvindra Singh (non-petitioner No. 3) also in the incident and these two persons are said to have actively participated in the incident of beating and causing injuries to the complainant party and hence by taking help from the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned hereinbefore, it can be said that order dated 3.4.2013 passed by Add. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar is not in accordance with law and so the impugned order dated 3.4.2013 deserves to be quashed which is hereby quashed and the trial Court is hereby directed to apply its mind in the proper perspective in accordance with the spirit of this order and then take cognizance against Jaspal Singh (non-petitioner No. 2) and Harvindra Singh (non-petitioner No. 3) also under the proper sections of the Indian Penal Code within one month from today. Both the non-petitioners Jaspal Singh and Harvindra Singh are also hereby directed to appear in the trial Court on 6.11.2013. 7. Both the non-petitioners Jaspal Singh and Harvindra Singh are also hereby directed to appear in the trial Court on 6.11.2013. 7. The revision petition is hereby accepted and disposed of accordingly and the stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to trial Court immediately by speed post.Revision allowed. *******